ISA Transactions 40 (2001) 341351

www.elsevier.com/locate/isatrans

Guide lines for the tuning and the evaluation of decentralized and decoupling controllers for processes with recirculation
Dominique Pomerleau a,*, Andre Pomerleau b
b a s bec, Canada, J3H 6C3 Breton, Banville et associe s.e.n.c., 375 Boul. Laurier, Mont-St-Hilaire, Que rale), Department of Electrical and Computer GRAIIM (Groupe de recherche sur les applications de l'informatique a l'industrie mine bec, Canada, G1K 7P4 Engineering, Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, Que

Abstract This paper gives guidelines for the pairing, the time response specication, and the tuning for processes with recirculation when decentralized controllers are used. This selection is based on the condition number, which is an indicator of the process directionality, and on the generalized dynamic relative gain (GDRG), which is a measure of the interaction. Simple tuning rules are developed and results are compared to algebraic controllers with decouplers. Performances are evaluated for set-point changes as well as disturbance rejection using the generalized step response (GSR). The GSR gives a 3D graphic of the system response as a function of the input direction. # 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Pairing; PID tuning; Decentralized control

1. Introduction Mineralurgical and chemical industries have a multitude of multivariable processes which, for reasons of eectiveness, have circulating loads. Blakey et al. [1] made a study of the advantage of recirculating loads on a otation circuit. They demonstrated that a signicantly higher grade recovery relationship is possible for rougher-scavenger circuit designs that incorporate circulating loads. A recent trend in Canadian mineral industry, though, has been the reduction of the number of recirculating loads in processing ow sheet design. This philosophy results from diculties observed in day-to-day plant operability. Stowe [2] and Edwards and Flinto [3] discussed the operation problems of otation circuits with recycle. The
* Corresponding author. Fax: +1-418-656-3159 E-mail address: dpomerle@hotmail.com (D. Pomerleau).

main conclusion is a decrease in the understanding of the circuit. This leads to important problems in operating the process in manual. A lack of proper choice of control structure and ecient tuning methods are also major reasons. The addition of circulating loads creates zeros in the process transfer functions and requires tuning rules taking into account these zeros [4]. It is thus important to be able to anticipate the eect of the openloop system characteristics on the closed-loop system response and to develop simple rules for the tuning of controller for such multivariable processes. Good tuning of decentralized PI controllers for multivariable processes is relatively complex. In particular, the design of single-input single-output (SISO) controllers for highly coupled multivariable processes often leads to poor performance because of a bad choice of manipulated variables, poor specications and poor tuning of the controllers.

0019-0578/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0019-0578(00)00040-9

342

D. Pomerleau, A. Pomerleau / ISA Transactions 40 (2001) 341351

Despite considerable work on decoupling controllers, decentralized PI controllers remain the standard for most industries. According to Skogestad and Morari [5], they have fewer tuning parameters, are easier to understand, and are more easily made failure tolerant. Furthermore, decoupling controllers are complex, require excessive engineering manpower, have a lack of integrity, have a lack of robustness and often result in operator non acceptance, according to Luyben [6]. For decentralized controllers, Desbiens et al. [7] have proposed a method where the time specications in closed loop have to be given and the controllers are evaluated by solving two quadratic equations. Some authors have proposed tuning methods which take into account the process uncertainty. Skogestad and Morari [8] have proposed an independent tuning method for decentralized controllers based on individual loop conditions. They have derived their conditions from the global robust performance condition of the m-synthesis environment. Chiu and Arkun [9] and Ito et al. [10] have proposed sequential design methods for decentralized controllers. Gagnon et al. [11] have also use the robust performance concept dened in the m-synthesis environment. In this paper, the condition number, which is a measure of directionality, and the generalized dynamic relative gain (GDRG), which is a measure of interaction, are used to determine the most appropriate control structure (decentralized or decoupling controllers). They also give the possibility to determine the pairing and the time response specications. From there, in decentralized control, the tuning of the SISO controllers based on an approximation of the transfer functions seen by each one is given. The controllers obtained are compared to the corresponding controllers where a decoupler is inserted between the process and the controllers. Both control structures are compared for set-point changes as well as in regulation using the generalized step input (GSR). 2. Process characteristics Multivariable processes are mainly characterized by their directionality and interaction. A

mathematical measure of directionality is given by the singular value decomposition (SVD) [12]. The singular values give, for each frequency, the maximum [ j!] and the minimum [ j!] values of the gain of the process and the singular vectors give the directions of theses maximum and minimum. The gain of a multivariable process, at a given frequency, is not limited to a single value but a range of possible values between  j! and  j!. A process with a wide range of possible gains has a large directionality and a process with a small range of possible gains has a low directionality. This characteristic is important because processes with large directionality can show control problems [1315]. The ratio  j!= j! is called the condition number. It is an indicator of the directionality or how ill-conditioned the process is. Here, a more intuitive representation, based on the step response, is given for measuring two inputstwo outputs (TITO) processes directionality and for the evaluation of the closed-loop system characteristics. The process input ut or the disturbance dt can be represented at a time t in a condensed form by a vector dt with amplitude given by its L2-norm. Similarly, the outputs can also be represented by a vector, yt, with an amplitude given by its L2-norm. The method consists in simulating the TITO process when the inputs di t are step functions. Keeping the amplitude of dt constant (Fig. 1) and simulating yt

Fig. 1. Input vector for TITO process.

D. Pomerleau, A. Pomerleau / ISA Transactions 40 (2001) 341351

343

for all possible directions  of dt generates the generalized step response (GSR). The GSR gives information about directionality, but it is not a measure of the interaction. Indeed, a process with a large directionality can have no interaction. A TITO process with zero gains in the cross-coupled transfer functions and a large and a low gain in the direct branches is an example of a multivariable process with high directionality. Directionality can come from the intrinsic properties of a process (ex. system with an even number of positive gain for a TITO process) or a system where the actuators are badly sized. 3. Interaction and pairing An interesting interaction measure is the generalized relative dynamic gains (GRDG) of Huang et al. [16]. The GRDG takes into account the dynamics of the closed-loops. The GRDG l11 s for a TITO process is dened as follows: R 2 s Gp11 sGp22 s Y 2 s l11 s R 2 s Gp12 sGp21 s Gp11 sGp22 s Y 2 s

is preferred to the RGA, which only considers the steady-state. 4. Tuning 4.1. Decentralized control As for SISO processes, the tuning of decentralized controllers consists in opening the loop under study and evaluating the transfer function seen by the controller as presented in Fig. 2. The transfer function seen by controller Gc1 s is G1 s and the one seen by controller Gc2 s is G2 s where G1 s and G2 s are given by: G1 s G11 s G2 s G22 s G12 sG21 sGc2 s 1 Gc2 sG22 s G12 sG21 sGc1 s 1 Gc1 sG11 s 2 3

where R2 s=Y2 s is the desired dynamics of the second loop. The variables R2 s and Y2 s are the set point and the process output of the other loop respectively. The transfer functions Gp11 s, Gp12 s, Gp21 s and Gp22 s are the elements of the process transfer matrix Gp s. In this paper, a representation of the GRDG is given as a function of both closed-loop bandwidths [17]. For easier control and tuning, the specications on the closed-loop set point responses have to be chosen in a frequency band where interaction is reduced so the system behaves more like SISO systems. In order to do so, the closed-loop response specications are chosen in frequency band where the GRDG is close to one since, as for relative gain array (RGA), it means that the interaction is low. Because the zeros in a transfer function aect the process dynamic, the GRDG, which takes in account the dynamic part of the transfer function,

Eqs. (2) and (3) show that the tuning of one controller depends on the other one controller. The system can then be separated into two SISO systems as seen in Fig. 3. A set-point change on one loop is seen as a disturbance by the other loop. Dierent approximations can be used to evaluate G1 s and G2 s. Since the controllers include an integrator to prevent static errors, a possible approximation at frequencies lower than the cross-over frequency (!co ) is: G1 s G11 s G12 sG21 s for Gc2 sG22 s > 1 G22 s 4

Fig. 2. Decentralized control.

344

D. Pomerleau, A. Pomerleau / ISA Transactions 40 (2001) 341351

with G21 s. The error made by the approximation has then a reduced importance for the transfer function seen by the controller. If the time constants of G12 s and G21 s are smaller than the crossover frequency !co , the ltering eect will be reduced but, in this case, the gains K12 and K21 should be much smaller than K11 and the transfer function seen by the controller will depend mostly on G11 s. If this is not the case, the wrong pairing has been used.
Fig. 3. Equivalent system (decentralized control).

4.2. Decoupling controllers For the tuning of the controllers when a decoupler is inserted between the process and the controller, as seen in Fig. 4, one has: D12 s D21 s G12 sD22 s G11 s G21 sD11 s G22 s 8 9

and G2 s G22 s G12 sG21 s for Gc1 sG11 s > 1 G11 s 5 This facilitates the tuning since the transfer function seen by one controller is independent of the other controller. For the other output variable, the system is in regulation. The process dynamics on the regulated variable depends primary on the dynamic of the manipulated variable where the set-point change occurred. From Eqs. (4) and (5), one can expect a slow response if the transfer functions in the direct branches contain a large time constant in the numerator since it is translated as a pole in the controller. This relation cannot be applied if the transfer functions of G11 s or G22 s contain an unstable zero or a delay longer than 12 s 21 s, where  represents the process delay. In these cases, the approximation given by Eqs. (6) and (7) can be used. G1 s G11 s and G2 s G22 s G12 sG21 s K11 7 G12 sG21 s K22 6

The transfer functions seen by each controller are then given by: G1 s G11 s G12 sG21 sD11 s G22 s G12 sG21 sD22 s G2 s G22 s G11 s

10

It is observed that the transfer functions seen by each controller are the same as the ones seen by the decentralized controllers when Eqs. (4) and (5) are used.

where K11 and K22 are, respectively, the gains of G11 s and G22 s. Generally, the transfer function Gc2 s 1Gc2 sG22 s is low pass ltered by G12 s in series

Fig. 4. Control with decouplers.

D. Pomerleau, A. Pomerleau / ISA Transactions 40 (2001) 341351

345

5. Evaluation It is always dicult to make a valuable evaluation of dierent controllers. Here, since the specications are given for set-point changes, similar dynamics will be taken as a reference point for both control structures and the controllers will be evaluated for both set-point changes and in regulation for a GSR at the process inputs. For symmetrical process, the GSR [Ys] to set point changes is equivalent to the manipulated variables [Us] in regulation for a disturbance at the process input, as illustrated by Eqs. (11) and (12). Ys Gc sGp s Rs 1 Gc sGp s 11

U s

Gc sGp s Ls 1 Gc sGp s

12

Where Ls is the disturbance and where Gc s represents the controller. When a decoupler is used for the system, Gc s includes the decoupler. Here, a limited number of cases will be studied and we will try to generalize the results. The different processes under consideration are given in Table 1. System A and B are only dierent in the signs of the gain of G12 s. Only two dierent signs of the gain are studied, since all the other cases can be deduced from these two as seen in Table 2. Cases 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 16 are similar to system A where the number of positive gain sign is

Table 1 Dierent processes under considerations System A Initial process G11 G22 G12 G21 Process 1 G11 4 1 10s 3 1 10s G22 4 1 10s System B G11 G22 G12 G11 G12 4 1 10s G21 3 1 10s 4 1 10s

3 1 10s 41 10s 1 10s2 3 1 10s

41 10s 1 10s2

G22 G21

G12 G21

3 1 10s 4 1 10s G21 3 1 10s 4 1 10s

3 1 10s

Process 2

G11 G22 G12

G11 G22 G12

4 1 10s G21 3 1 10s

31 10s 1 10s2 41 50s 1 10s2

31 10s 1 10s2 41 50s 1 10s2 3 1 10s

Process 3

G11

G22

G11 G12

G22 G21

4 1 10s

G12 G21

3 1 10s 4 1 10s

3 1 10s

Process 4

G11 G22 G12

G11 G22 G12

4 1 10s G21 3 1 10s

31 50s 3 G21 1 10s 1 10s2

31 50s 1 10s2

346

D. Pomerleau, A. Pomerleau / ISA Transactions 40 (2001) 341351

Table 2 The dierent processes under consideration Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Gp11 s + + + + + + + + Gp12 s + + + + + + + + Gp21 s + + + + + + + + Gp22 s + + + + + + + + System A Identical to 3, with opposite gain sign for Gc System B Identical to 3 Identical to 3, with opposite gain sign for Gc2 Identical to 1, opposite gain sign for Gc1 Identical to 1, opposite gain sign for Gc1 Identical to 1, opposite gain sign for Gc1 and Gc2 Identical to 1 Identical to 1, opposite gain sign for Gc2 Identical to 1, opposite gain sign for Gc2 Identical to 3, opposite gain sign for Gc1 Identical to 3, opposite gain sign for Gc1 and Gc2 Identical to 3, opposite gain sign for Gc1 and Gc2 Identical to 3, with opposite gain sign for Gc2 Identical to 1, opposite gain sign for Gc 1 and Gc2

even. The other cases are similar to system B where the number of positive gain sign is odd. The condition number and the GRDG are given for all processes in Figs. 5 and 6 . On the basis of the condition number, which is a measure of directionality, system A processes 1 and 2 should be accelerated while system B should not be. Fig. 5 shows that the condition number, at high frequencies, is lower for system A, and is higher for system B. On the basis of the GRDG, system B process 3 should also be accelerated in order to reduce interaction since it is near 1 at high frequencies as shown in Fig. 6. The transfer functions seen by each controller are given in Table 3 with the corresponding tuning. The tuning method proposed by Poulin et al. [18] has been used. For the process under study where G11 s G22 s for the initial system, the controllers are symmetrical when a zero is incorporated in one of the cross-coupled transfer function. Fig. 7 gives the approximation used for the transfer function seen by the controller in decentralized control and the real function seen for initial system A while Fig. 8 gives these approximation for initial system B. The full line of the Bode plot refers to the approximation and the dotted line refers to real function seen by the controllers for the initial process. At frequencies lower than the cross-over frequency (!co ), the transfer

functions seen by the controllers and the approximations used for controllers tuning are identical. 5.1. System A On the basis of the condition number, system ``A'', which has an even number of positive sign, presents a high directionality. For the initial process, which is symmetrical and has equal time constants, this value is constant and equal to 16.9 dB. The gain seen by the controllers is low (K11 K12 K21 K22 1:75) since the outputs are inuenced by components acting in opposite directions. For setpoint changes, decentralized and decoupling controllers give similar results on the output variable for which the set-point has occurred. The GSR for a disturbance at the process inputs are given in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. It is observed that the decentralized controller gives a response much less directional that decoupling controller. This can be explained by the fact that the disturbance is rst amplied in the direction of the maximum singular vectors for both types of controllers but is corrected very slowly with decouplers since they eliminate the directionality. The decentralized controllers although have a uniform directionality for a symmetrical process. It is also observed, for the case of a symmetrical process, that the

D. Pomerleau, A. Pomerleau / ISA Transactions 40 (2001) 341351

347

Fig. 6. Dynamic generalized relative gain for system A and B.

Fig. 5. Condition number for System A and System B.

manipulated variable for a step output disturbance gives the process outputs for set point changes as given in Eqs. (11) and (12). As a result, for highly directional and coupled processes, decoupling controller will be much less robust to modelling errors. For process 1, which has a non-minimal phase zero in the direct branch, this non-desired characteristic is amplied for the transfer function seen by the controller since the action coming from the cross-coupled transfer functions are acting in the

opposite directions. At the opposite, process 2 which has a non-minimal phase zero in the crosscoupled transfer function has a stable zero in the transfer function seen by the controller. This could be deduced from Eqs. (4) and (5). A consequence of the latter is that process 2 will be easy to accelerate and process 1 will be impossible to accelerate. For process 2, another advantage is that accelerating will reduce directionality as given by the condition number. The GSR plots shown, for process 2 in decentralized control, conrm this as shown on Fig. 11 for Kc 0:57 (!co 0:1) and in Fig. 12 for Kc 4 (!co 0:7). This explains why a PID has been used for the tuning of process 2.

348

D. Pomerleau, A. Pomerleau / ISA Transactions 40 (2001) 341351

Processes 3 and 4 have a stable zero. For a stable zero in the direct branch, it means that the transfer function seen by the controller will also have a stable zero. The tuning will be easy and the process can be easily accelerated. However, the controller will contain a large pole to satisfy set-point changes specications. As a result of this large pole, one might expect slow time response for the output in regulation in decentralized control. For process 4, as one might expect, the stable zero in the cross-coupled transfer function is seen as a non-minimal phase system by the controller. This will limit the system response in both types of control structures.
Fig. 7. Bode plot for system A initial process.

5.2. System B System B presents no directionality on the initial system. The components coming from the direct and the cross-coupled transfer functions are acting K on the same directions (K11 K122221 6:25). It K means that for the systems, which have a zero, the eect of the zero will be reduced for the transfer function seen by the controller. This is conrmed by the results shown in Table 3. For process 3, according to the GRDG, it should be accelerated in order to reduce the interaction. This is shown in Figs. 13 and 14 where the deviation of the regulated variable is reduced from 0.25 to 0.15 for a gain of 0.16 and 0.64 of the controller, respectively. It also shows that the presence of an important zero in G11 s has a determinant eect

Fig. 8. Bode plot for system B initial process.

Fig. 9. (a) GSR output for system A, initial process (decentralized control). (b) GSR input for system A, initial process (decentralized control).

D. Pomerleau, A. Pomerleau / ISA Transactions 40 (2001) 341351

349

Fig. 10. (a) GSR output for system A, initial process (control with decouplers). (b) GSR input for system A, initial process (control with decouplers).

Fig. 11. GSR for system A process 2 (Kc 0:57).

Fig. 13. Step response for process 3 of system B (Kc 0:16).

Fig. 12. GSR for system A process 2 (Kc 4).

Fig. 14. Step response for process 3 of system B (Kc 0:64).

350

D. Pomerleau, A. Pomerleau / ISA Transactions 40 (2001) 341351

Table 3 Transfer functions seen by each controller and the corresponding tuning Initial process System A D12 (decoupler) D21 (Decoupler) G1 G2 GC1 GC2 System B D12 (decoupler) D21 (decoupler) G1 G2 GC1 GC2 0.75 0.75 6:25 1 10s 6:25 1 10s 0:161 10s 10s 0:161 10s 10s 0 0.75 6:251 2:8s 1 10s2 4 1 10s 0:1251 15s 15s 0:251 10s 10s 0.75 0.75 1:75 1 10s 1:75 1 10s 0:571 10s 10s 0:571 10s 10s Process 1 0 0.75 1:751 36s 1 10s2 4 1 10s 0:1271 15s 15s 0:251 10s 10s Process 2 0:751 10s 1 10s 0.75 1:751 36s 1 10s2 1:751 36s 1 10s2 0:571 10s2 15s1 36s 0:571 10s2 15s1 36s 0:751 10s 1 10s 0.75 6:251 2:8s 1 10s2 6:251 2:8s 1 10s2 0:161 15s 15s1 2:8s 0:161 15s 15s1 2:8s Process 3 0:751 10s 1 50s 0.75 1:751 101s 1 10s2 1:751 84s 1 23s2 0:571 15s 15s1 101s 0:571 15s 15s1 84s 0:751 10s 1 50s 0.75 6:251 35:6s 1 10s2 6:251 36s 1 10s1 50s 0:161 10s2 15s1 35:6s 0:161 52:6s 52:6s1 36s Process 4 0:751 50s 1 10s 0.75 1:751 42s 1 10s2 1:751 42s 1 10s2 0:111 15s 15s 0:111 15s 15s 0:751 50s 1 10s 0.75 6:251 24:4s 1 10s2 6:251 24:4s 1 10s2 0:161 15s 15s1:24:4s 0:161 15s 15s1 24:4s

on the time response of the regulated variable y2 t for a set point change on y1 t. In both cases, a PID with a pole zero cancellation method has been used in order to be able to accelerate the process. 6. Conclusion Simple tuning rules have been developed for decentralized controllers. The approximations used remain valid for most systems since the transfer functions seen by the controllers are low pass ltered by the cross-coupled functions. It is

observed the transfer functions seen by the decentralized controllers are the same as the ones seen when a decoupler is used. For system that have a non-minimal zero in the direct transfer functions another approximation has been used since the formed cannot be inverted and fully decoupled systems are impossible. For processes which have high directionality (even number of positive sign) and are highly coupled, decentralized control should be used in order to reduce this directionality in regulation for process input disturbances. For these processes, since the components of the direct and cross-coupled

D. Pomerleau, A. Pomerleau / ISA Transactions 40 (2001) 341351

351

branches are acting in opposite directions, the presence of the zero will be amplied. However, a nonminimal phase transfer function, in the cross-coupled transfer function, will be seen as a stable zero by the controller and the tuning will be easy. The controller will include possibly a large pole, and the performances that can be obtained for set-point changes will be high but there will be limits in regulation since the manipulated variable will be slow moving. At the opposite, a stable zero in the cross-coupled transfer functions will be seen as a non-minimal transfer function by the controller and limited performances will be obtained for both types of control structures. As a consequence of the above stated facts, a control structure where the nonminimal phase transfer functions are in the crosscoupled branches should be used if possible. At the opposite, a stable zero should be preferably in the direct branches. For processes that are not highly directional (odd number of positive sign), the eect of a zero in one of the transfer function will be reduced for the transfer function seen by the controller and the sign of the zero will not be changed. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to NSERC (Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada) and BBA (Breton, Banville & Associates s.e.n.c.) for their nancial support and authorization to publish. References
[1] B.C. Blakey, D. Hodouin, C. Bazin, An assessment of the eects of recirculating loads on the dynamic performance of simple otation circuit structures, CAMI, Montreal, October 1995. [2] K.G. Stowe. Noranda's Approach to Complex Ores Present and Future, AMIRA Annual Technical Meeting, 1992.

[3] R.P. Edwards, B.C. Flinto. Process Engineering of Flotation Circuits. CMP Conference, Ottawa, 1994. [4] E.W. Jacobsern, Eect of recycle on the plant zero dynamics, Computers & Chemical Enginnering 2 (1997) 279284. [5] S. Skogestad, M. Morari, Implications of large RGA elements on control performance, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 26 (1987) 23232330. [6] W.L. Luyben, Dynamics and control of recycle systems, simple open-loop and closed-loop systems, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 32 (1993) 446475. [7] A. Desbiens, A. Pomerleau, D. Hodouin, Frequencybased tuning of SISO controllers for two-by-two processes, IEE Proceedings on Control Theory and Applications 143 (1996) 4956. [8] S. Skogestad, M. Morari, Robust performance of decentralized control systems by independent designs, Automatica 25 (1989) 119125. [9] M.-S. Chiu, Y. Arkun, A methodology for sequential design of robust decentralized control systems, Automatica 28 (1992) 9971001. [10] H. Ito, H. Ohmori, A. Sano, Robust performance of decentralized control systems by expanding sequential designs, Int. J. Control 61 (1995) 12971311. [11] E. Gagnon, A. Pomerleau, A. Desbiens, Mu synthesis of robust decentralized PI controllers, IEE Proceedings Control Theory and Applications 46 (1999) 289296. [12] D.D. Bruns, C.R. Smith. Singular value analysis: a geometrical structure for multivariable processes, AIChE Winter Meeting, Orlando, FL, 1982. [13] M. Morari, E. Zariou, Robust process control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, 1989. [14] S. Skogestad, I. Postlethwaite, Multivariable feedback control, John Wiley & Sons, UK, 1996. [15] S. Skogestad, M. Morari, J.C. Doyle, Robust control of ill-conditioned plants: high-purity distillation, IEEE Tranactions on Automatic Control 33 (1988) 10921105. [16] H.-P. Huang, M. Ohshima, L. Hashimoto, Dynamic interaction and multiloop control system design, Journal of Process Control 4 (1994) 1524. [17] A. Pomerleau, E. Gagnon, D. Pomerleau. Selection of pairing, tuning, and evaluation of decentralized controllers, in: Proceedings of the 2nd IASTED International Conference on Control and Applications, Ban, Canada, 1999, pp. 316320. [18] E. Poulin, A. Pomerleau, A unied PID design method based on a maximum peak resonance specication, IEEE Proceedings Control Theory and Application 144 (1997) 566574.